By Jason D. Williamson
Last summer, in the wake of the arrest and tragic death of Sandra Bland, following what should have been a routine traffic stop in Prairie View, Texas, I encouraged readers to understand their legal rights, but cautioned them not to “give the police an excuse to mistreat [them] or pile on additional charges.”
Among my suggestions were the reminders that you have the right to remain silent, you don’t have to consent to have your car searched, you have the right to ask the police whether you’re free to go if you haven’t been arrested, and if you are arrested, you have the right to ask for an attorney—which you should do immediately. I also stressed the importance of staying calm.
While I stand by that advice, the killing of Philando Castile outside of St. Paul, Minn., last week—again in the context of a routine traffic stop—serves as a gut-wrenching and infuriating reminder that, particularly for Black men in this country, playing by the rules is often not enough.
The sad irony of Mr. Castile’s death is that, if asked how motorists should conduct themselves if they are legally armed when the police pull them over for a suspected traffic violation, my answer would be to do essentially what Mr. Castile reportedly did.
According to his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who witnessed this horrific incident along with her 4-year-old daughter, Mr. Castile took all the steps that should have been necessary to protect himself and the officer who stopped him: He informed the officer immediately that he had a firearm in his possession and that he was licensed to carry that firearm. Only then did he attempt to obey the officer’s order to produce his identification. Assuming Ms. Reynolds’ account is accurate (it has yet to be disputed), it was when Mr. Castile reached for his identification, in an effort to follow the officer’s instruction, that he was shot.
This shooting came just one day after the brutal and senseless death of another Black man, Alton Sterling, at the hands of police officers in Baton Rouge, La. And it’s one of thousands of instances of Black men being shot and killed by police across the country—both in recent years and in decades past.
Could Mr. Castile have done more to try to protect himself under the circumstances? I suppose. Could he have kept his hands in the air and waited for further instruction from the officer before reaching for his identification? Yes. Could he have asked the officer to clarify exactly what he wanted him to do after telling him about the gun? Absolutely. Could he have suggested that the officer remove the identification himself? Sure.
But frankly, I’m not sure any of that would have mattered. The unfortunate truth is that the answer to the question posed by the title of this article depends on who’s asking. And for Black folks, the answer is to do everything Mr. Castile did—maybe more—then hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
The more important question is: how long are we going to tolerate a twisted dynamic in which people of color bear the heavy burden of de-escalating their interactions with the police? And at what point are we going to truly confront—and require police officers and their departments to confront—the shameful legacy of racism in this country and its continued impact on the way our criminal justice system operates on a daily basis?
I don’t have answers to those questions, but I hope law enforcement officials and ordinary citizens alike will join the ACLU and other civil rights organizations in trying to address them in the weeks, months and years ahead.
Because, as the tragic events in Falcon Heights, Baton Rouge, and Dallas last week should have reminded us, our lives—quite literally—depend on it.
Jason Williamson is a lawyer with the ACLU.
I am a white woman in my mid sixties. I do not carry a weapon of any type. And yet, during a recent, completely legitimate traffic stop by an officer I had not previously met ( I know a number of our local police through community interactions), I was cautious. When asked to produce my driver’s license and registration, I left both hands on the wheel, informed him of the location of both, and asked if it was ok to reach for them. It was not until he told me “yes” that I took my hands off the wheel.
Yes, these are precautions that we could all take. But should we have to ? Should anyone feel so intimidated by a traffic stop that they feel the need to ask permission to do what they have been instructed to do because any sudden or suspect movement may result in a physical response from the heavily armed but wary police officer ? Is this the anxious, fearful society that we want to live in ? Because it is the one that we have built and continue to justify and sanction.
Tia wrote:
> Yes, these are precautions that we could all take. But should we have to ?
You don’t “have to”, (feel free to carry a toy gun with you and yell “black lives matter cops must die” and reach for the toy gun next time you are pulled over)…
The crux of what happened to Philandeo Castile is right here. How can we remember to ask the officer if we really should do as just instructed. That is what Castile was doing when shot, getting his ID as instructed.
Mr. Williamson, I would like to make a correction here as I understand it, and I have really paid attention to the details here. I believe by the time Castile told the officer he was armed his hands were already reaching for the ID in his back pocket, which he had been instructed to retrieve. The officer then said keep your hands where I can see them when they were already out of sight and started shooting essentially immediately, before Castile had any time to move his hands back into view.
I to read this a few times to understand why I was so irritated with it.
But I calmed down after the realization that this is really standard stuff for you.
It is the “shoot the messenger” tendency you have… the messenger being any entity that expects you to adopt the protocols of actual life, not the fanciful utopian version you prefer.
But there is still a bit of irritation that you would complain about being inconvenienced by following a protocol that assists the professional police officer in doing his/her job. Do you lack the ability to have any empathy for a police officer… a man or a woman… a husband or a wife… a mother or a father… that might be regularly stressed that he or she might not come home for the evening after being killed by a driver suspect?
Here is a thought… how about criticizing the thugs, crooks and murderers for causing the need for this protocol? Oh wait, they are members of one or anther oppressed victim class and cannot be held accountable for their behavior. Utopia only dispenses empathy for those belonging to some underdog class. That’s it.
But I do get the irritation part. I feel it every day I have to travel through an airport. But instead of me criticizing security and law enforcement professionals for doing their jobs to keep me safe, I try to make their jobs as easy as possible while criticize the terrorists. But then you and I are different that way apparently.
Frankly, there’s a video compilation of officers getting shot during routine traffic stops floating around on Facebook right now. It’s very horrific and makes you realise the true danger that cops are in during what’s supposed to be just a normal traffic stop. If I can find it I’ll post it on here.
BP. Yup. Here it is… https://www.facebook.com/1506821589619159/videos/1509403472694304/
Thanks Frankly. Have you watched it? They sure didn’t have much time to think.
Oh yeah I watched it. And I am sure every traffic and patrol cop in the nation has watched it too. And in their training they were told about it all. And so they proceed with caution and sometimes make mistakes… mistakes that get them shot and killed and mistakes where they shoot and kill suspects because the suspects did things that kicked in their cop-training believing they were about to get shot and killed.
I hope everyone that reads the Vanguard watches it and sees what the cops are up against. It’s easy to arm chair quarterback but seeing actual footage of cops getting shot gives you a new insight of how dangerous a their jobs can be.
It’s coming out that it wasn’t a routine traffic stop. Officer Yanez thought Castille resembled an armed robbery suspect. This puts a whole different spin on the incident. All the facts aren’t out yet, all we know for certain is what we’ve seen in the video that shows the aftermath of the shooting.
Of course he thought the guy resembled an armed robbery suspect. I laugh that you think this is somehow a revelation. THAT’S WHAT THEY ALWAYS SAW.
This article doesn’t state that. The fact that Officer Yanez thought he was an armed robbery suspect plays into why the officer might have been more on guard than a normal broken tail light traffic stop.
Still doesn’t explain not only the drawing of the officer’s weapon, nor pumping up to 4 shots into the “suspect”, nor the lack of first aid nor medical attention, nor still pointing the weapon when the ‘suspect’ was pretty obviously dying…
Are you kidding? The officer is approaching someone who he felt resembled an armed robbery suspect who said he was armed.
BP… can you parse the english language? I conceded the concept of the officer DRAWING the weapon (note the use of the phrase “not only”), and you ignore the rest… the firing of up to 4 shots, lack of medical/first aid, etc… trolling?
Oh, BP, you have been imbued with the “fact” of what officer Yanez ‘thought’? Now that Johnny Carson has passed, perhaps you can be the next “Carnac”….
Wrong again Hpierce, I didn’t use “Carnac” to know what the officer thought.
I listened to an audio of his radio call to headquarters where he stated that he had stopped a vehicle with an occupant that resembled an armed robbery suspect.
OK, although I didn’t have the audio you SAY you have listened to (but did not cite a source for others to consider), and have in my ORIGINAL post conceded that the officer was right in drawing his weapon… yet, Phil has pointed out the procedures for a ‘felony stop’… I acknowledged we need more real facts… Phil said nothing about pumping several rounds into someone, and then not rendering first aid/calling for medical assistance, and continuing to point the service weapon on a dying man, as part of ‘procedure’…
Are you saying that this was a “righteous”/justifiable shooting? Did the man ‘deserve to die’? Was the lack of aid justifiable? Was continuing to point the weapon at an obviously helpless ‘suspect’ justified? While many facts are not “in evidence”? Is a bank robbery a ‘capital crime’? There is no evidence, to date, that it was reasonable to NOT ONLY (I think I need to parse this for you, as I think you may have problems with grammar and/or logic) draw his service weapon [reasonable, for his own protection], but to fire multiple shots, continue to point his service weapon, choose not to render any aid, etc.
Guess you think the “suspected perp” deserved to die… and, perhaps, the officer should not only be exonerated, but perhaps deserve a medal/other recognition?
Now who’s being Carnac? I never said or thought any of those things. I was just pointing out that it was more than just a broken tail light stop. The other issues you bring up need looking into, but that’s not the point that I was making.
Once again you inject much more into it than what I actually wrote.
As usual, you go way over the top.
[moderator] edited
OK BP, and you never go “over the top”… yet, I admit I have some “hot buttons”… you, of course, as I now humbly acknowledge, do not… you are always factual, and do not escalate discussions, nor express things emotionally… good for you… will try to learn from your example…
And, I will not ask you to perform a biologically impossible [or, at least improbable] act.
So glad you are measured, and don’t “act out”…
My sincere apologies to all for all my “over the top” (apparently always) posts…
To protect myself and others from my frequent transgressions, I ask moderator/VG to delete my posting privileges…
Not always, but quite frequent.
Nice try at deflecting it back on to me.
You might try counting to 10 before you hit that “post comment” button.
Just in case my priv’s have not yet been revoked yet, BP, I didn’t “try” anything… why do you think so? Probably my fault as well…
BP makes a good point… elsewhere, I often wait hours before responding… here, it’s usually 5 minutes, but I have trouble counting to 10.
BP sets a good standard… BP posted a full 8 minutes after I on the most recent exchange, 6 minutes on others…
no BP, HP is not over the top. He has it exactly right. The officer could have pulled his weapon once he knew Castile was armed (he was simply being honest and informed the officer of this) but not pumped 4-5 bullets into him, ignored his need for medical care, etc. And the reason his hands were out of view is because he was complying with orders to produce his ID. Then once his hands were out of view he was instructed to put them in view and shot simultaneously.
Hpierce, when I get attacked I will respond. I rarely if ever try and start a fight. That’s twice in two days that you tried to disparage me.
That said I actually like your posts as you’re very knowledgable of the city’s inner workings. Please keep posting, but calm the f down. I’m over it, hope you are too.
For all, to let one of my comments to be in context, BP did indeed suggest I perform a biologically impossible/improbable act, which was written/posted, with the request to the moderator that it be deleted, with the request that just enough time be allowed for me to read it. You will note it has, indeed, been deleted. Yeah, read it, BP… perhaps medical professionals can further explain anatomy to you…
G’day mates… been real, been fun, but not always real fun…
As I composed this, had not seen the post directly above this one…
As suggested, will count to 10…
dlemongello, I can agree with your points if it all played out that way. We don’t know all the facts yet, maybe we never will. I was just pointing out why the vehicle was originally stopped, not because of a broken tail light but because Officer Yanez called in that Castille resembled an armed robbery suspect.
BP… you have also not offered any reason, even if the officer said he suspected, WHY he suspected…
here’s what I found as far as audio… am still not convinced this was a justifiable shooting…
http://www.kare11.com/news/police-scanner-audio-1/267042738
I am a bit amazed one officer would pull over a robbery suspect and claim it is a traffic stop? WHEN the gun was pulled is a matter for the investigation to reveal, and this was a young officer who has a small amount of time in the field.
This is the crux of a lot of tragic problems in policing. Some people are not qualified to be in the field, and thanks to budget constraints and layoffs, not enough officers are in the field to cover or evaluate each other.
Meanwhile, they would rather cover up than confront problems.
That’s another thing I don’t think too many people know. There was actually two officers present at the time of the stop.
Yes, there were 2 officers, and instead of calling for medical help for Castile, the 2nd officer spent his time consoling his partner who I believe was crying when he continued to pointing his gun at Castile after shooting him while saying I told you to keep your hands were I can see them. You can’t see his face, but listen carefully to how he sounds.
At some point the officers gave Castille CPR and 12 to 15 squad cars and paramedics showed up.
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/17385-bystander-captured-moment-cops-gave-philando-castile-cpr-after-he-was-shot-in-car
OK… a few year ago, in Davis, there was a robbery @ the YFCU South Davis Branch… the “perps” were described as ‘black’… a few hours later a Davis PD officer pulled over a car containing two white males (one a definite ‘nordic’ looking blond) as “suspects”… they were teenagers…
Yeah, we need more facts… including whether the officer had indeed been given a picture and/or detailed description of the suspect, the quality of such a picture/description, if any, etc. In the Castille event, early indications, even with the newer info, still remain that it was a “wrongful death”.
Frankly
“But there is still a bit of irritation that you would complain about being inconvenienced by following a protocol that assists the professional police officer in doing his/her job.”
How about you make at least a minimal attempt to understand what I have written before you go into automatic “what Tia must believe mode”.
You completely missed my point entirely. I was not complaining about being “inconvenienced”. I was saddened by the fact that either of us, the policeman or I should feel any anxiety at all. I am saddened that any police officer would ever need to feel anxiety when making a routine stop. Neither civilian nor police should have any anxiety whatsoever about such a stop. The underlying assumption on the part of the citizen should be that the policeman is making the stop in order to improve safety. The police should be able to assume that when they make a stop that the citizen detained is going to comply in a respectful manner. We are very, very far from that on both sides. Not once did I use the term “inconvenienced” and yet you somehow decided that was what I really meant and so went into “what a liberal must believe mode”.
“Officer Yanez thought Castille resembled an armed robbery suspect. This puts a whole different spin on the incident. “
Thought someone “resembled” is reason to shoot before ascertaining identity ? This puts a whole different spin on the incident for you ? Really ? So the penalty for “resembling” a dangerous criminal is being shot to death ? Surely you are not really saying that ? Because that is the result whether you are saying it or not.
Nope, not what I said at all. I just read your post to Frankly where you felt he put words in your mouth now here you’re trying to do just that to me. What I said was Officer Yanez radioed in that Castile resembled an armed robbery suspect. So the different spin is Yanez is approaching a car where he is more on guard than he would be normally if it was just a routine broken tail light stop. Got it?
BP
“now here you’re trying to do just that to me”
No. I was asking you. Not telling you what you think. If I spell it out this clearly and you can’t see a difference, then I do not believe that we are engaging in an honest conversation.
Tia, you would never pull the ‘gimmick’ of putting a question mark after each allegation?
For instance, did you attempt to make wild accusations acceptable by framing them as questions rather than statements?
Surely you weren’t really trying to do that?
See how that was done?
I’ve been waiting patently for the oft-traveled discussions threads on police shootings to go down a new talking point that emerges with the two most recent publicized incidents. Both men killed had concealed firearms on their person, and both reportedly were legally carrying lethal weapons under local law. Assuredly both officers will cite the mere presence of a lethal weapon as prime justification for the deadly force.
Expanding to the larger social issue of citizens carrying lethal weapons legally when approached by a law enforcement officer, the whole dynamic of the contact changes.
When citizens are “open carry” or “concealed” with lethal weapons–and notice of same is made known in any way to an officer–the approaching officer has no immediate way of knowing the citizen is legal or not. The permit is not stapled on the gun owner’s forehead. And legally armed citizens still have the capability of committing crimes.
With vehicle stops as a prime example, here is what society must potentially face as a consequence with the increase of CCW holders throughout this country. Take an otherwise routine traffic stop for a minor infraction. But the officer is made aware of the violator being armed, including self-observation or alerted by a nearby witness.
Patrol tactics and policy require that a”felony stop” be initiated when there is any reasonable suspicion of the driver being armed. Police fatalities during traffic stops are at the upper tier of frequency. The patrol officers delays the stop until supporting vehicles arrive, initiates the stop and parks the vehicle at an angle to maximize shielding from gunfire. Then the driver is ordered at gunpoint to exit the car and drop on his/her knees with arms raised.
Presently, instances of felony car stops are very rare. That could well change when more folks carry guns, openly and otherwise. In the overall desire to improve police/community interaction in any circumstance this seems to be a big step backyards. Not many people want to be forced to lie on the pavement for running a stop sign.
Phil… understand your points, but thus far the ‘facts thus far in evidence’ show no signs that the “felony stop” procedures you described were followed…
As I understand the situation in Louisiana, the suspect was a felon and was illegally carrying.
I would support national legislation to require all firearms transported in automobiles to be locked in cases/containers.
The problem here is that bad guys certainly will not follow that law. So does it really help make policing safer? It may in fact make policing safer to hold a greater sense of risk that a driver might be carrying with intent to shoot the officer.
Had a cousin (second cousin, once removed) who was a detective in New Jersey 40 years ago… he told me that:
1: drug dealers were known to embed shotguns in the driver side door, so that they, if stopped and asked to “step out”, they could aim the opening door at the officer and kill them… my cousin knew of at least 3 times that happened…
2: New Jersey officers often carried ‘confiscated’ guns (missing from the chain of custody), that could be used to show that the suspect ‘was armed’, if the officers f’ed up and shot an unarmed ‘suspect’…
My cousin abhorred both situations, but was honest enough to discuss those issues…
There are no particularly easy answers… Frankly makes a suggestion that all weapons be transported in locked cases… good idea… unless you are the victim of an attempted car-jacking (rare, but happens, sometimes with children in the back seat…)… I do not own a gun… if I did, I’d get a permit to carry, be prepared to use it responsibly, knowing that ‘the bad guy’ might be more armed if they got to my gun before I did… it is not simple…
“1: drug dealers were known to embed shotguns in the driver side door, so that they, if stopped and asked to “step out”, they could aim the opening door at the officer and kill them… my cousin knew of at least 3 times that happened…”
Do you have any evidence that this has happened even once? To “embed” a shotgun on a car door is not a trivial modification.
I was a teenager, listening to my cousin who was a detective, 40 years ago… based on everything I knew about him, he was scrupulously honest… no… I can provide no internet sites/cites, but I truly believe, 40 years ago, that this did happen near Trenton, New Jersey… might have been a local ‘fluke’ and do not know, and cannot document.
Checked snopes.com and found nothing, one way or other…
Why don’t we get the memo?
Are normal people getting this? Is there a bumper sticker we can get? Of course, in Yolo County, chance are slim anyone would carry legally unless they are in the Sheriff’s Friends’ List.
With all respect, Mr Coleman, you gonna take a victim of Domestic Violence, one of the Sheriff’s criteria (you must have a threat against you: http://www.yolocountysheriff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/CCW-Policy-10-12.pdf SEE 11-3) And make them lie in the dirt while they are pulled over?
A CCW carrier would be more compliant, but why in this case was the guy going too fast for the officer? I hope the investigations reveal the whole story, which so far has not been forthcoming.
“Are you kidding? The officer is approaching someone who he felt resembled an armed robbery suspect who said he was armed.”
The problem I have is this is always the excuse. In Davis, Mr. Davis was approached under the pretext that there was a call about a potential burglar in the area. Of course, it turns out the description was black male. And it also turns out there was no actual burglar. At least the Davis PD officer had the good sense not to show up and pull his gun. Maybe Phil Coleman has a different view, but in mine, 30 years experience, I don’t see the need to pull a gun unless there is actual threat. Pulling the gun actually increases the fear response by the police officer making him make less rational decisions.
dlemongello (9:37 post)
Not that BP needs defending, but BP is probably correct in my use of “tone” being inappropriate.
Will have to learn from BP, Frankly, etc. as to how to avoid the use of “tone”…
Thank you for affirming my rational part, tho’…
HP, I am a believer in tone reflecting emotional reality, as long as one is not being completely unreasonable. What I do not like at all is people who only ever have a monotone, I find that insincere and manipulative. Feelings are real and I think it is legitimate to express them replete with tone.
And you do not find that Frankly and BP use tone? I guess when reading, tone is in the ear/mind of the reader.
I think his comment was meant as sarcasm. I am full of tone.
You full of tone Frankly? Nah, you just say it how it is.
Only in one of the three lines/sentences… yeah, the second one was sarcastic to the extent of the ‘kettle calling the pot black’ thing…
My first and third were completely sincere…
We are a nation drowning in guns. Since the inception of the Brady Bill of 1993 there have been 118 million applications for firearm ownership submitted. Fewer than 2% of these are denied. The FBI estimates that there are about 8-9 million assault-style weapons in the hands of civilians. Its all estimates because no one apparently keeps hard data on gun ownership
A couple of months ago I stopped at a gun shop to use the bathroom and the clerk (a retired cop)showed me this weapon that had 2 canisters of ammunition, one on each side of the barrel, and each holding 50 rounds. When I asked if I needed a special permit to buy it he said no, and then went on to explain that because it did not have a stock it technically was not an assault RIFLE. This is insane!! As a nation we are crumbling from within.
I only have a comment about the article that starts out giving “advice” for people in traffic stops by this so-called “expert”. If Mr Williamson knows what he is talking about it is sure not traffic stops.
Mr Coleman has related the real story, in his experience, explaining Policy and tactics of stops, and I assume Mr Williamson does not have law enforcement experience, rather ACLU is mostly civil, not Criminal.
Be careful, Mr Lawyer, or you will sound like Joe Biden (just let a couple shotgun blasts off the back porch).
I almost stopped reading after this little Factoid. Next: White cops blamed for the Civil War?
If you are a white American you are culpable for black oppression going back to the first colonists… And probably before.
I realize that you don’t care to give any attention to the murder of Dylan Noble, a white 19-year-old kid who was killed by the Fresno PD two weeks ago. But the video which came out last week shows that he did everything that he was supposed to do, and the cops shot and killed him with the excuse that they thought he had a gun. He did not.
Of course, no national media have covered the killing of Dylan Noble at all. No stories on NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN. (I don’t know about Fox.) The New York Times, Washington Post and other major national newspapers have ignored the story (and video) of Noble being killed with his hands up in his pickup. Black Lives Matter is not protesting this killing, only because they are racists and Noble is of the wrong race.
It is therefore very annoying that David Greenwald, who knows that most of the people killed by cops are white, but he passes along this strange theory that “playing by the rules is not enough for black men.” When you adjust for violent crime rates, murder rates, rates of killing cops and other pertinent rates, whites are much more likely to be killed by cops in the U.S. Yet you would never know that if you listen to people with a “cops hate blacks” agenda like David and BLM have and if you follow their compatriots in the national media who have chosen to ignore all stories which run counter to their imagination of how the world works.
You would think these social justice types would be at least more strategic in their claimed desire to see changes in law enforcement and incorporate ALL cop shootings of suspects. And for their claimed desire to see more gun restrictions you would think they would go crazy with the black on black gun murderes.
They don’t. And for this reason it is clear to understand that their claimed desires are not their real ones. Their agenda is something else. What is it?
It is political. They know that their ideology is faulty and failing and they are desperate to scapegoat the cause.
I have a lot of understanding for the job of law enforcement and support the men and women that do it. And I am thankful what they do to keep all us law-abiding people safe. But part of me sees the current “war on cops” as a result of them having made deals with the Demdevil and now the Demdevil is back demanding their souls for payment.
“Demdevil” is about as helpful to productive communication as “Repist”… lose the adjectives (posing as nouns), and you might be better heard… meant as a friendly evaluation…
BTW, I am neither Democrat nor Republican… nor any third party… I actually think… and base my votes on positions and integrity as I see it, and generally have had to vote as to the lesser of two (or more) ‘evils’… yeah, I’m weird…
I’m sure you understand the point and get the point. It is an allegory. The police have established a political relationship primarily with the Democrat party, and it is primarily the Democrat party blaming law enforcement for what are really symptoms of decades of failed policies pushed by the Democrat party. Now the Democrat party is saying to lay enforcement: “you got all the goodies we gave you, now we need you to allow us to blame you for a bunch of problems that if we accepted responsibility for would cause us to lose political support from our base.”
The Democrats want to turn every City into those high minded examples of urban prosperity, Detroit, Chicago, SF and DC.
It is becoming the Wild West in california, why would you let people out of prison and expunge their records? When I was back in Ohio and told people this, they thought I was crazy. Crazy for staying here.
I must of missed this. Is this even being considered?